Moment of Inertia of a Rotating Cam

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on calculating the kinetic energy of a circular cam rotating about an off-center shaft. The initial calculations using the moment of inertia for a solid disk are incorrect, as the cam's mass and geometry require a different approach. A key insight involves treating the cam as a solid disk minus a smaller disk, leading to a more accurate moment of inertia. Participants clarify that the rotational inertia must account for the off-center axis using the parallel axis theorem. The conversation emphasizes the importance of understanding the physical implications of these calculations in rotational dynamics.
Dorothy Weglend
Messages
247
Reaction score
2
This cam is a circular disk rotating on a shaft that does not pass through the center of the disk. It is manufactured by first making the cam with radius R, then drilling an off-center hole, radius R/2, parallel to the axis of the cylinder and centered at a point R/2 from the center of the cam.

The cam, of mass M is then slipped onto the circular shaft and welded into place. What is the kinetic energy of the cam when it is rotating with angular speed w about the axis of the shaft?

This is giving me real problems, so I would appreciate any suggestions.

I used Icm = MR^2/2 for the moment of inertia of a solid, rotating cylinder around its center of mass, and the parallel axis theorem to get:

I = MR^2/2 + MD^2 = MR^2/2 + M(R/2)^2 = 3MR^2/4

From which the rotational kinetic energy should just be:

Kw = (3MR^2/4)w^2(1/2) = (3MR^2/8)w^2

But the answer in the book is (23/48)MR^2w^2

So, wow, am I off.

The only thing I can think of is that the shaft might be made of a different material, so I would have to change the mass calculation somehow, but the problem doesn't say anything about that. Anyway, wouldn't they make these things out of the same stuff?

Thanks for any help,
Dorothy
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think they want the KE of the cam, not the cam plus shaft.

A hint and a trick. Hint: M is the mass of the cam, not of a solid disk of radius R. Trick: A disk with a hole can be thought of as a solid disk of radius R plus another solid disk of radius R/2 but with negative mass. :wink:
 
Well, that was easy. Thank you! Cool trick, that negative mass idea.

Does this actually have any kind of physical significance? Wouldn't the effective KE of the cam be different, because really, it seems to me, the shaft and the cam form a single object. Is there any point to this calculation besides the routine torture of physics students? :rolleyes:

Thanks again, Doc Al. I hope you had a great thanksgiving.

Dorothy
 
Request for full solution

Can you show me the full solution of this question?

Thanks :-)
 
So just to follow up on what Doc Al posted. When he is talking about the disk of radius R being subtracted with the missing disk we are assuming that the original disk does not follow the inertia of a regular disk right? Since the axis it is being turned on is not at the center of the large disk we use MR^2 instead of 1/2MR^2 right? Just double checking.

Thanks Matt
 
matt0101 said:
When he is talking about the disk of radius R being subtracted with the missing disk we are assuming that the original disk does not follow the inertia of a regular disk right?
A disk with a hole in it has a different rotational inertia than a complete disk, if that's what you are asking.
Since the axis it is being turned on is not at the center of the large disk we use MR^2 instead of 1/2MR^2 right? Just double checking.
To find the rotational inertia of a disk about a point not at its center, we use the parallel axis theorem.
 
The book claims the answer is that all the magnitudes are the same because "the gravitational force on the penguin is the same". I'm having trouble understanding this. I thought the buoyant force was equal to the weight of the fluid displaced. Weight depends on mass which depends on density. Therefore, due to the differing densities the buoyant force will be different in each case? Is this incorrect?

Similar threads

Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
Replies
335
Views
16K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
2K
Replies
25
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
4K